Staff: Mentor

I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you could find an example of someone who has done this. I had been under the impression that de Broglie's thesis, for example, was exceptionally short and completed in about a year. The idea that electrons could behave as waves became clear to him in 1923, and he was awarded a PhD in 1924. However, if you look into the story, he actually started his PhD studies in 1920.

The reason you're getting the reactions above, is because completing a PhD in a year is highly unlikely. For most people it takes at least that long just to do enough background reading to understand your field and develop a solid grasp of what problems need to be worked on. There's also course work requirements (in North America anyway). Even if you catch on quick and are lucky enough to put forth some ideas that work the first time, you have to write them up and ideally get them published - a process that takes time. I've had papers that have taken almost a year between the initial submission and final publication (although for a thesis defence, it would be acceptable for the papers to simply be accepted for publication).

I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you could find an example of someone who has done this. I had been under the impression that de Broglie's thesis, for example, was exceptionally short and completed in about a year. The idea that electrons could behave as waves became clear to him in 1923, and he was awarded a PhD in 1924. However, if you look into the story, he actually started his PhD studies in 1920.

Szilard was awarded his PhD for work he did during the Christmas break...
Although he had of course spent about a year working on another problem without getting anywhere.

But this is of course completely irrelevant, the system of education we have now is VERY different from what was in place 90 years ago. Remember that even as an undergraduate you spend most of your time studying topics (most notably quantum mechanics) that didn't even exist when de Broglie, Szilard and the others were students.

(Graduating in 4 years is definitely possible and people do it every year... It's just not the way to bet.)

It also depends on the country.

In the UK, PhDs are 3 years as standard and are considered to have over-run if it takes 4 years, I've never heard of anyone taking more than 4 full time. PhD funding very rarely passes the 3 year mark here. An EngD will be 4 years.

But, yes, I'm sure the OP has enough information to answer their question.

The difference between theoretical and experimental work isn't what you think it is: experimental does not necessarily mean 'doing experiments' - e.g. someone that analyses data from any real observations will consider themselves an experimentalist despite the fact that they might never leave their computer.

Is it really necessary to continue bumping this thread? It keeps showing up in my inbox. The topic is very nearly offensive to me. If you are capable of such things, it is not necessary to ask. If you are, I don't think you would be asking here, rather you would be working hard on your thesis.

That's because a PhD in the UK requires a Master's first, iirc. In the US, a PhD program doesn't require a master's.

I think that's where the difference comes in.

Apologies to Phyisab**** for posting once more, I agree that this thread should probably be locked and/or deleted; but just incase someone reads this and is misled:

It is not true that a masters is required for a PhD programme. A 3 year Bsc in england or the 4-year Bsc in Scotland is enough, and, barring exceptional circumstances, both need to be at an upper-second class level (equivalent to a B grade overall).